Friday, December 23, 2016

Politics Is
Power. . .with a capital “P” and that rhymes with “P” and that stands for POWER.
. .

Cherry picking and altering a few
lines from the 1962 American musical film classic, Music Man, starring Robert
Preston as Professor Harold Hill:

Friend, either you're closing your
eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge or you are not aware of the
caliber of disaster indicated . . . ya got trouble right here in the U.S.A. . .
We've surely got trouble! Right here in the U.S.A! Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock and
the Golden Rule! Oh, we've got trouble. We're in terrible, terrible trouble. [See the real lyrics]

Okay, maybe
the analogy between politics and pool in the Music Man is not perfect, but I’m
trying to make a point here. Whether you want to believe it or not there is a
serious political divide in this country that is threatening to rip it apart.

As a
somewhat humorous aside, but truly related; I stumbled upon a 2015 song by the
great Willie Nelson and the late, great Merle Haggard, that captures the
feeling of about half of the country:

“Well, it’s all going to potWhether we like it or notThe best I can tellThe world’s gone to hellAnd we’re sure gonna miss it a lot. . .” [access the video]

Seriously,
although 52% of Republican voters think Donald Trump won the popular vote (see article) – he didn’t. . . and
that’s a fact – he lost by nearly 3 million votes (2,864,978
as of 12/15/16). To make it clear, that means that out of all
the citizens of the United States that cast their ballots in the latest
Presidential election and did their duty as Americans, almost 3 million more
voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump to be the 45th President and almost
54% of those that voted, did not vote for Donald Trump.

We have to start looking at facts, not rhetoric; and try to
understand what it means:

·A December 19, 2016, a Gallup poll shows that 57% of adult Americans
approve of the job that President Barack Obama is doing

·The same day, a Rasmussen
Reports poll indicates 56% of Americans think the country is on the
“wrong track”

From the above facts, it seems fairly obvious that most
Americans think the country is on the wrong track, they approve of the job
President Obama has done, they are concerned and cautious about a Donald Trump
presidency and they are really dissatisfied with the job that Congress has
done.

So as Professor
Harold Hill says, “either
you're closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge or you
are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated” if you chose to ignore these
facts. Yes, Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote (See previous post) and according to the rules of the
game under which we are playing now, he is undisputedly the new President of
the United States;
BUT, under no circumstance can President-elect Trump or the Republican Party
claim that they have a mandate to exercise their political will.

To claim
such a mandate would be to blatantly and shamelessly ignore the facts and to
put party, power and politics above good government and to intentionally exacerbate the already deeply
divided general public.

According to the rules, the GOP has all
the political power – House, Senate and Executive Office – but by all counts, a
razor thin margin in nationwide political divide. There is now a clear choice as to how it
uses that power – to heal the nation or further divide it.

It’s not enough to simply say:
“Democrats get over it. You lost. Buck up and move on.” Well, I guess that’s
the simplistic solution. But that solution is not going to heal a deeply
divided nation.

It’s become a game
played by both parties. “I win. Now you’re going to play by my rules and you’re
going to pay for what you did to me.” The excuse for being mean is, “You did it
to me, so I’m doing it to you. . . If you can do it, so can I.” [See previous post, Gridlock Games: "If you can do it,
so can I. . ."] This is the childish game being played
inside the Beltway. All the while ignoring the facts of how deeply divided the
nation is – let’s call it 50-50.

The more we continue to play the
foolish game and advocate “my way or the highway” solutions that ignore the
beliefs of half of the country, the more the general public becomes frustrated,
angry and distrustful of the process that can’t resolve the pressing problems
of the day. That’s why the Congressional approval rating is around 20% -- on a
good day.

Now the Electoral College has elected
a new President and the expectation is that everything will change. But the old
President had a 57% approval rating and the new one has something like a 46%
approval rating. For sure we are going to see change, but was it really the
President that was making people think we were on the wrong track?

What about Congress with their 20% approval rating?
Unfortunately, they appear to be off and rerunning the same old playbook. House
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has recently become a giddy supporter of Donald Trump
after being an outspoken critic for months. Ryan, like a kid in a candy store
with a pocket full of money, seems anxious to dust off all those Republican
bills that were rejected when that mean old President Obama was in office.
Knowing full well that those bills will not be acceptable to about half of the
country, he’s ready to move quickly during the first 100 days to pass as many
as possible.

He was recently quoted in the Washington Times saying, “We
intend on delivering, and we’re going to make sure that this is the most
productive Congress we’ve seen in a long, long time. I’m confident that, as
people understand the way the legislative process works, they will see that we
are going to be hitting the ground running.” [See article]

Among the promises
are getting rid of air, water and climate change regulations; increasing oil
and gas production on public lands; finally repealing the Affordable Care Act
(Obama Care); cutting funding for Planned Parenthood; tax breaks for the
wealthy; restarting the coal industry; cutting clean energy funding and
programs; and many more highly controversial programs.

Here we go again. I’m
not saying the Democrats wouldn’t do the same if the table was turned; but, I
am reminded about the definition of insanity – you know “over and over again.”
We actually have a choice and right now Republicans are in power and could
actually change course. Recognizing the reality of a sharply divided electorate
where the losing candidate actually received almost 3 million more votes than
the winner, we could try something new – call it an experiment to reflect the
changing times and the current political reality. If it produces better results
maybe we could continue it.

So, is there one thing that could be
done to really heal this divided nation and at the same time bring about
government reform that would lead to better governance? Something that would acknowledge
the differences between party principles, yet respect the participants on both
sides of the aisle? An idea that could be implemented without a Constitutional
amendment or even a new law. A solution completely within the Legislative
branch of government that could be implemented
immediately with just political will; and political will means power and the
Republicans have it all.

This proposal is radical, but these
are radical times. The nation is more divided than it has ever been and the
traditional methods of operation in Congress have broken down to the point of
being dysfunctional and unable to address the critical issues of our time. It
is time for radical solutions that can truly make a difference. If radical
measures are not taken, or at least tried, we will face further gridlock and
deeper divisions and unrest of all Americans.

What better time to try a new
approach than when the elected President loses the popular vote by nearly 3
million votes and there is no clear political mandate. To ignore this reality
and carry on business as usual is grossly irresponsible and an insult to the
American public.

Bipartisanship is a word that is used a lot in politics. The
generalized definition is:

“a political
situation, especially in the context of a two-party system in which opposing
political parties find common ground through compromise.”

It’s a great concept and certainly what is needed in these
troubling times.

Most often the term is touted in the
context of bipartisan legislation or proposals to solve critical problems where
the majority party manages to get the agreement of one or a few members of the
minority party and the bill or idea is claimed to have bipartisan support –
even though it is widely opposed by most of the minority party. This is phony
or fake bipartisanship.

True bipartisanship is where
legislation or proposals are developed within the context of a completely level
playing field and advanced with near majority support from both parties, i.e.
real compromise.

To get to the underpinnings of Congressional gridlock and
disingenuous bipartisanship you must look deep down in into sausage factory of government where
laws are made and issues are debated. It starts with the multitude of House and
Senate Committees (21 in each house) and further down with the many
Subcommittees (over 150).

The legislative
subcommittees and committees are where the laws and solutions are developed and
where executive agencies are monitored through oversight. Under current rules,
this is where bipartisanship gets off to a false start. The subcommittees and
committees are ruled by a majority party chairperson and the membership always
assures a majority party control. Therefore all actions at this very basic
level of solution development are under the strict control of the majority
party.

For example, the powerful
House Energy & Commerce Committee is currently chaired by Representative
Fred Upton (R-MI). The Committee includes 31 Republican members and 23
Democratic members. There are six separate subcommittees. A typical
subcommittee, the Environment & Economy Subcommittee is chaired by Representative
John Shimkus (R-IL). The
Subcommittee includes 12 Republican members and 8 Democratic members. Thus, all
environmental issues that are considered in the House of Representatives begin
their journey first in the Subcommittee and then the full Committee and are
completely controlled by the Chairmen of these bodies and all matters are
decided where the majority party has a significant voting advantage.

The committee and
subcommittee level is where specific legislative language is developed, staff
research is done, experts are consulted, hearings and public meetings are held,
witnesses and interest groups testify and votes are taken to move things
forward. This is where lobbyists and interest groups have their greatest
influence because they are dealing with fewer legislators that they must win
over to their point of view. In the above example, lobbyist and interest groups
concerned about environmental matters can focus intense efforts on the Committee
chairman and 12 Republican members of the environment Subcommittee that
basically control environmental matters in the House.

Although House and
Senate rules provide some concessions to the minority party, the bottom line is
that they have no real control over the agenda, they are provided less budget
and staff resources, witness testimony is lopsided in favor of the majority,
and most importantly they are out-voted and out-maneuvered on all differing
positions.

This is why
legislative proposals and agency oversight are most often one-sided. This is
why committee hearings are generally more of a sideshow rather than an
objective information exchange and airing of different points of view. This is
why lobbyists and special interests are able to exercise undue influence over
the process. And finally, this is why ill-conceived legislative proposals that
ignore large sections of the population arrive on the House and Senate floor.
Likewise, it is the reason that legislative oversight of executive agencies
turn into partisan witch hunts and character assassinationsof agency
personnel rather than an effective review of agency programs, budgets and
actions.

With a simple act of
Republican Party will and power in the House and Senate, this situation could change
if the rules of committee and subcommittee operations were amended to provide
equal co-chairs, equal majority and minority membership, and equal budget and
staff.

This one fundamental change
in business as usual would completely alter the legislative process dynamics by
filtering the issues to be addressed to the most important ones and forcing compromise
at the very beginning of the legislative process. It would assure that both
sides – majority and minority parties – had an equal and fair hand in developing
proposals and solutions to address the critical issues of the day and the
reality of a politically divided population. Proposal and solutions, developed
in the true spirit of compromise, could include the best ideas of both sides
and avoid the sharp differences and conflicts that further divide the nation.

The operating
procedures and details for such a change would have to be adopted in rules of
the House and Senate but could be somewhat on the order of a Conference
Committee which is a standard Congressional process to resolve differences
between House and Senate versions of a legislative bill.

Additionally,
there is a ready-made model for shared power committee operations in the House
and Senate Ethics Committees. These are unique committees where membership is
evenly divided between each political party and unlike other committees, the
day-to-day work of the committees are conducted by staff that is nonpartisan by
rule.

In conclusion it is
noted that the idea of shared power runs counter to the instinctive DNA of most
politicians. The basic goal of political dynamics is to acquire power and use
it to achieve ideological objectives. As sad as it may be, those objectives rarely
include better governance.

While the party in
power could institute reforms to heal a deeply divided nation the odds are not
good. As I have discussed before politicians and Washington insiders cannot be expected to
change the system for the better because all parties benefit and take advantage
of the destructive mechanisms depending on who’s in power at any given time. If
reform proposals are ever implemented it will most likely require something on
the order of a public revolution with intense public pressure as well as
strategic and coordinated involvement of the many public interest and reform
organizations that are focused on these issues.